Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by snerd, Aug 6, 2012.
How do you decide if the entry is unlawful, except after the fact?
Not sure, but if they have a search warrant, and they got the address wrong, but it still has a judges signature on it, is that unlawful?
I'd consider it a true tragedy if I shot a LEO just trying to do his job over a typo. Only thing worse than that would be if I or a loved one were hurt over the same mistake.
Excellent question! Stupid? Yes! Tragic? Yes! But I would think it could only be viewed as illegal if the judge were lied to in order to obtain the warrant. I'm willing to bet anyone that shoots an LEO that has kicked in their door by mistake will still pay a very heavy price for being right. A large portion of the public will say they are still wrong for shooting a LEO no matter what the LEO has done.
I'd feel terrible if I ever shot a LEO over a mistake, but with my lifestyle, it's a hell of a lot more likely that guys like this will be coming through the door.
I think you're right. After the fact.
A specific clause in FL law says you can't do that in FL, when LE is on duty.
It's nice to have a dog. You'd get advanced warning, and the ability to see what's going on first.
I have two dogs and a surveillance system. Reinforced doors too, which would be expected to slow even a battering ram down a bit. Bad part is that I would have to cross the front door to flip on the TV to see the video feed, time may be a factor.
Right now, the plan is to tray anyone trying to breach the door as what would honestly be more likely, bad guys at the gates.
One of the reasons, despite my background, I have Always been unhappy with the casual issuing of "no knock" warrants. I am sorry to say this but it SHOULD be dangerous for LE to kick in someones door because they MIGHT be kicking in the wrong door. There are few circumstances that can't be handled with out such drama. Yes you can create "what if?" scenarios in your imagination all day long, but how many mistaken deaths, either civillian or LE are "acceptable colateral damage" to the "No Knock" tactic?
This is old news, and as you would know if you bothered to do a little research, it is the people's house restoring rights abrogated by an activist court. It's a good and necessary law given the rulings last year by the Indiana Supreme Court.
You want the gestapo kicking down your door without a warrant? I didn't think so. Thank you Indiana General Assembly.
If you plan to use a dog to warn you about a LEO visit, don't get too attached to it.
Anyone want the perspective of a veteran police officer?
Believe it or not...I support the AFFIRMATION of the RIGHT of a homeowner (even a renter, just to be clear) to use whatever force is necessary to stop an ILLEGAL entry by ANYONE...status as LE or "Gub'ment O-fishull" not withstanding.
No matter what some (especially in the fed'ral gub'ment) believe, the 4th Ammendment is still alive, though it has definitely taken some hits over the last 30 years.
The old saying that "A man's home is his castle" means a lot more than the hyperbole associated with the phrase now. Your home is, and should be your last bastion of safety and security. You SHOULD feel safe and secure within the walls of your home, and to that end, you have the right to repel boarders.
Someone busting down your door is, by it's nature, a VIOLENT AND TUMULTUOUS ENTRY. Any reasonable person would believe, given the increase in home invasion robberies that turn to rape and homicide, that ANY violent entry into your home is thus an IMMEDIATE AND OTHERWISE UNAVOIDABLE DEADLY THREAT.
An HONEST person should have NO reasonable expectation that a SWAT team would have ANY reason to break down their door, therefore...read above... ANY violent entry into your home is thus an IMMEDIATE AND OTHERWISE UNAVOIDABLE DEADLY THREAT. You do NOT have the luxury of time to solve a RIGHT THE EFF NOW problem with detached reflection.
Now...all that being said...YOU as the homeowner have a responsibility to make sure your ADDRESS is prominently displayed on your home! I don't care about aesthetics...because here's the deal...if your address is NOT prominently displayed on your curb, and AGAIN by your front and back door...it can be claimed that the mistake was YOURS and not whomever screwed up.
It makes sense to me. My home address is on the garage, on a name placard by the front door rught under the "greeting light" as my wife calls it and on the back door welcome sign. If ANYONE chooses to ignore ALL those signals and comes in anyway... they really don't have a leg to stand on when they claim "Oops...my bad".
Also....you NEED to have security screen doors both front and back that open OUTWARD. They are nearly impossible to kick inward" and require breaching tools to open OUTWARD, and thus provide noise notification that something is amiss. Obviously they should also be alarmed with a VERY VERY loud klaxon that will wake the neighbors (so note of the time may be made, etc...etc...etc...) An inexpensive video or web cam directed at your entry doors will also be an asset. The audible alarm will give you a reactionary gap in which to place yourself in a position of cover from which the mess MAY BE SORTED OUT without anyone having to be hurt, which IS the best outcome. The camera will provide evidence supporting YOUR version of events.
Think about it.
Were you assuming that I disapproved of the law?
Why? If Rover is in the house ALL Rover needs to do is BARK BARK BARK WOOF WOOF WOOF.
You don't need a trained ninja attack chihuahua in the front yard.
Besides...we'd get in more trouble for shooting a dog than a violent sebject.
Barky pooches are a GREAT idea. They are more sensitive to what is going on than anyone else...and...even if they catch a bullet...that's what they get paid for. I love my dogs...but I'd rather lose them than a hair on my kid's head get scuffed.
AZL, you and I are on the same page.
I think surveillance cameras is a good idea. Most important addition to my vehicles is $50 Hi-def cams attached (suction cup) to top of windshield. More expensive version has GPS speed on recorded video. You can easily attach them to windows in house, set to motion activated.
Like AZL said, it's good insurance for such a cheap price considering lawyers and court costs. LE should like them, too.... Makes their job simpler.
But...all the previous posts have some merit...the salient point is this:
ANY competent officer asking for a warrant had better DAMNED WELL double-triple-quadruple check the warrant application to make sure it is all correct, as should HIS superior.
There are MANY components to a proper warrant, and they ALL must be fulfilled and correct to be vaild and legal. If it is incorrect, it is NOT a valid warrant especially if the address to be searched is wrong because NO probable cause to seek the warrant exists on THAT address. Yes, it IS legal double-talk and "portugreek"...but there you have it.
For example...the suspect is John J.J. Smith, who resides at 123 Street Lane, Funkytown AZ 85666. The warrant very clearly shows that name and address.
The entry/search team does a no-knock at 123 Street Drive, Funkytown AZ 85666 which is owned by Ward Cleaver.
Ward Cleaver KNOWING he has done nothing wrong, and has absolutely NO reason to believe LE would be knocking his door to the ground, uses his defensive firearm to protect the Beaver. Ward is well within his rights to protect said Beaver from an ILLEGAL entry into his home because the warrant was INCORRECT and ILLEGALLY EXECUTED upon his home because it is for the wrong address, and negligence on the part of the entry team for not making sure the address on the warrant matched the address ON the warrant.
If Ward can ARTICULATE this...he has a pretty good chance of not being prosecuted by any DA with any freakin' common sense.
HOWEVER...sadly...the Beaver will be an orphan because Ward brought a pistol to a rifle fight. BUT...the lawsuit would be HUGE
The only problem with shooting law enforcement officers as they enter your home is that the rest of them will shoot back.
If that sounds like a winner for you, go for it.
Here's a real situation:
Andrew Scott was killed on July 15. The 26-year-old heard banging on his door very early in the morning and he answered with a gun in his hand, according to officials. That's when a deputy shot him.
Part of the terrible tragedy is that Scott was not the one deputies were looking for that night. "
Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/central-fl...15988754/-/1evegfz/-/index.html#ixzz22o9cVbFi
You skipped the part where he pointed the gun at the cops, who were lawfully present. Stupid games, stupid prizes.
And to get ahead of another issue, their hired mouthpiece is, ah, "misrepresenting" at least the SCOTUS decision. No requirement for a cop to announce when he's not serving a warrant.
If any thing I think this will force the cops to think twice before they do "No Knocks" and ensure the warrent is for the right person/place ! Which should be the priority anyway. When entering a private home the law should be absolutely sure it is nessesary.
If anything, *I* think this will cause the cops to use SWAT more often for warrant services. If the chances of being shot go up, might as well have big guns and armor on scene.